Monday, July 15, 2013

Why would anyone ever dream of profiling a black youth?

Contemporary American racial politics have got to be more complicated than any other kind of politics. In fact, they have got to be more complicated than astrophysics and neural brain surgery.

Even Americans for whom their country’s racial politics have become like a first language to them still have great difficulty in mastering it. Outsiders aspiring to achieve fluency in America’s racial politics have nearly insuperable obstacles to surmount.

With an eye toward making “the text” of our racial politics at least somewhat less convoluted, I offer the following “cliff notes.”

First things first: “racism” is the worst thing with which to charge a white person. To repeat, there is no conceivable catalogue of evils in which “racism” does not rank at the top (or bottom) of the list—for white people. To put this point another way, although every American, of every race, loudly and proudly repudiates “racism,” by the latter they almost always mean white racism.

This brings us to the next note.

There is endless hand wringing over “equality,” “fairness,” and “justice,” it is true. And “color blindness” is extolled as the premiere virtue. In reality, though, whites and non-whites—especially blacks—are not regarded equally in America. All talk of “white privilege” clashes violently with the fact that non-whites, especially blacks, just simply are not judged by the same standards as their white counterparts. And, as this one example of “racism” illustrates, the double standards are glaring.

Not infrequently, at least nowadays, calls on the part of racial activists and their followers for justice or equality are ideological smokescreens designed to advance their own interests and/or the interests of the groups that they represent. Such activists, regardless of their color, shout from the rooftops for “justice” for blacks and Hispanics, say. However, for whites, particularly those whites who have been aggrieved in some way by non-whites, they are nowhere to be found.

Third, though it sounds counterintuitive, racein America is less a matter of skin tone and more a matter of ideology. Actually, race is as much an ideologicalconcept as any.

There is a narrative concerning American race relations that has become the official history. As it has achieved the status of dogma, it tolerates no competitors. According to this narrative, for all practical purposes, “racism” begins in the United State with the enslavement of African blacks. Notwithstanding their tireless attempts to repent of the oppression to which they’ve subjected blacks throughout the centuries, whites continue to fall prey to their delusions of racial “supremacy;” they cannot do enough to make amends.

Now, this narrative is false not entirely for what it says as for what it neglects to say. Blacks had been enslaving one another for eons before the first white man stepped foot on the African continent—and they resisted European efforts to end the slave trade. Had it not been for Africans there would have been no Trans-Atlantic slave trade, for it was Africans who sold their fellow Africans to the Europeans. And what is true of Africans is no less true of America’s aboriginals who had been enslaving one another long before whites reached the Western hemisphere.

Of course, there are other critical facts that the official creed omits. Blacks enslaved blacks in the antebellum South andblacks fought for the Confederacy. Blacks have a far higher standard of living in modern America than most people, black white, or other, have living in any other place on Earth. From their emancipation from the bonds of slavery to the destruction of Jim Crow and everything since then—including the election and reelection of a black president—blacks’ gains in America would never have been possible had it not been for the blood, sweat, and tears of whites.

Today, blacks are murdered and victimized by blacks to a vastly greater extent than they are victimized by whites (or the members of any other racial group). And the overwhelming majority of interracial crime is black-on-white—not the other way round.

That race is ideological in contemporary America is as well borne out by the fact that the Hispanic-looking George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch member in Sanford, Florida who shot to death black teenager Trayvon Martin, is treated as an honorary white man—in spite of being a mixture of black, white, and Hispanic.

For over 20 years, Hispanic gangbangers in Los Angeles have been conducting what the Southern Poverty Law Center describes as a “campaign” of “ethnic cleansing” in black neighborhoods. This outrage has been met with deafening silence by the national media and the racial activists. Thus, it is difficult not to think that had Zimmerman had his mother’s Spanish surname, or had he been a gangbanger, as opposed to a community activist, we would never have heard of either him or Martin.

Surely, the black major of Philadelphia would be focused on the little problem.

Mayor Nutter has just issued this statement on the verdict in the Trayvon Martin case in Florida: "We are a country governed by the rule of law, and while I respect the criminal justice system, I am deeply saddened with the verdict of 'not guilty' in this case. "A young black man is dead without any real explanation.

George Zimmerman took an innocent life.

Trayvon Martin, who at trial was made to appear threatening when all he had was a bag of Skittles and an ice tea, should not have died at Zimmerman's hands and I believe the jury should have exacted a penalty.

"As a parent, I can't begin to know what Trayvon's proud and dignified parents are feeling right now, but I pray for them in this dark hour. And I urge everyone to keep them in their thoughts and prayers.

Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20130715_Mayor_Nutter_urges_calm_and_reflection_after_Martin_verdict.html#CQTMy6gzWOHfmfh3.99

Police seek suspects in fatal South Philly shootingPOSTED: Sunday, July 14, 2013, 10:09 PMPolice are seeking suspects in the fatal shooting on a man tonight in South Philadelphia.

A 32-year-old man was shot four times - once in both arms, once in the left leg and once in the chest - just at 9:12 p.m. on Reed Street near 27th, according to Officer Jillian Russell, a police spokeswoman. He was taken to the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, where doctors declared him dead, Russell said.

Tipsters can call homicide detectives at (215) 686-3334 or -3335.

------------------

A 20-year-old man who had been on probation for brutally attacking and assaulting a senior citizen in 2011 was shot to death in Olney late Tuesday night, according to police.

Samuel Cave, of Champlost Avenue near 4th Street in Olney, was shot once in the chest just after 11:30 p.m. Tuesday at 5th and Grange streets, police said Wednesday. He was taken to Albert Einstein Medical Center and became the second gunshot wound victim of the night to die there at 11:52 p.m., after a man shot in West Oak Lane about two hours earlier also died there.

Cave was arrested in December 2011 after police released surveillance video of him and another teenager ambushing a 65-year-old man who was walking along Chelten Avenue in Olney one afternoon. Cave and his accomplice knocked out their feeble victim’s teeth and left him unconscious on the ground, according to accounts of the attack.

Police said they were called to a sanitation yard on State Road near Ashburner Street just before noon by workers who discovered the dead body of a man in the yard. Investigators said the man appears to be in his mid-60s to early-70s, and he remains unidentified. The cause of death is unknown, police said.

Medics arrived at the scene and officially pronounced the man dead at 11:58 a.m.

--------------------

Police: Thugs who attacked, stabbed off-duty cop still at large

Police are still on the hunt for a group of men who attacked and stabbed an off-duty police officer as he was jogging in Oxford Circle Saturday night.

The off-duty cop was on Horrocks Street near Levick around 9 p.m. when police say four to five men approached him and attempted to rob him. They then stabbed him once in the stomach and once in the arm, according to investigators.

The officer was released from Jeanes Hospital early Monday morning, police said.

Surely the US Justice Department must be concerned about demonstrable Black on White hate crimes. Well maybe not:

SANFORD, Fla. (MarketWatch) — The Justice Department said Sunday it would weigh whether to file federal criminal charges against George Zimmerman after his acquittal in a shooting that set off a searing national debate over racial justice and self-defense laws.

Its statement came as groups including the NAACP and the American Civil Liberties Union urged U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to open a federal civil-rights case against Zimmerman, the former neighborhood-watch captain who shot and killed Trayvon Martin.

“Experienced federal prosecutors will determine whether the evidence reveals a prosecutable violation” of civil-rights laws, a department spokeswoman said in a statement. The department has had an open investigation into the death of Martin since last year.

Holder plans to address the Zimmerman case Tuesday when he speaks to the NAACP in Orlando, according to an official familiar with his plans.

The FBI report concluding Zimmerman had not a racial hatred bone in his body is going to protect Zimmerman from this. Zimmerman tutored a black kid, for instance. And the testimony of his friends and others who knew him was unanimous. He was not a racist.

I admit to profiling. When in Lexington, Kentucky visiting my son, who had no problem at all getting a job, I was walking from the motel up a block and over to a gas station to buy a pack of smokes, when I see three black youths coming my way on the other side of the street. Very dark, no one else around, not the best street lighting. I delay my crossing of the street until they are out of sight, and then continue. They never saw me.

We all profile, everyone does. Who gives a second thought to an elderly women pushing a grocery kart up the sidewalk? No one. That is profiling. A mob of black teenagers? Yes, that gives concern. A group of Asian youth? Not at all. A group of Hasidic Jews? Nope. How about a group of Muslims all fired up after some world event and the Friday fiery sermon? Yup.

Sorry, the Zimmerman Case Still Has Nothing to Do With ‘Stand Your Ground’

Jacob Sullum|Jul. 14, 2013 11:12 am REASON

Video via The Orlando SentinelThe story that George Zimmerman told about his fight with Trayvon Martin, the one that yesterday persuaded a jury to acquit him of second-degree murder and manslaughter, never had anything to do with the right to stand your ground when attacked in a public place. Knocked down and pinned to the ground by Martin, Zimmerman would not have had an opportunity to escape as Martin hit him and knocked his head against the concrete. The duty to retreat therefore was irrelevant. The initial decision not to arrest Zimmerman, former Sanford, Florida, Police Chief Bill Lee said last week (as paraphrased by CNN), "had nothing to do with Florida's controversial 'Stand Your Ground' law" because "from an investigative standpoint, it was purely a matter of self-defense." And as The New York Times explained last month, "Florida's Stand Your Ground law...has not been invoked in this case." The only context in which "stand your ground" was mentioned during the trial was as part of the prosecution's attempt to undermine Zimmerman's credibility by arguing that he lied when he told Fox News host Sean Hannity that he had not heard of the law until after the shooting. During his rebuttal on Friday, prosecutor John Guy declared, "This case is not about standing your ground."

So how did Benjamin Jealous, president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, respond to Zimmerman's acquittal last night? By announcing that "we will continue to fight for the removal of Stand Your Ground laws in every state." And how did the Times, the same paper that last month noted Zimmerman's defense did not rely on the right to stand your ground, describe Florida's self-defense law after he was acquitted? This way:

The shooting brought attention to Florida's expansive self-defense laws. The laws allow someone with a reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death to use lethal force, even if retreating from danger is an option. In court, the gunman is given the benefit of the doubt.

While it's true that Florida has eliminated the duty to retreat for people attacked in public, that provision played no role in Zimmerman's defense or his acquittal. And contrary to what the Times seems to think, giving the defendant the benefit of the doubt is not unique to Florida. It is a basic principle of criminal justice in America.

NPR likewise keeps insisting that the Zimmerman case somehow casts doubt on the wisdom or fairness of "stand your ground" laws. In a story that summarized the events leading to Zimmerman's trial, correspondent Gene Demby said Florida's "stand-your-ground self-defense law...figured to be a major pillar of Zimmerman's defense." No, it didn't, given his description of the fight. And once the trial started, it was obvious that "stand your ground" had nothing to do with Zimmerman's defense. Yet Greg Allen, the NPR reporter covering the trial, said this last week: "Under Florida's Stand Your Ground law, Zimmerman need only convince the jury that he was acting in self-defense and was in fear of death or great bodily harm to win acquittal." Allen forgot to mention that the fear must be reasonable, and he implied that the jury had to be fully convinced by Zimmerman's story to acquit him, when in fact it only needed reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's version of events, in which the shooting was not justified. Most important, Allen conflated "stand your ground" with the general principle, accepted even in states that impose a duty to retreat in public places, that a reasonable fear your life is in jeopardy justifies the use of lethal force.

You might think that, given all we now know about Zimmerman's actual defense, critics of "stand your ground" laws would have to find a different, more apposite case to illustrate their concerns. Instead they just barrel along, citing the same phony example again and again, without regard to the facts. It does not inspire confidence in their argument.

Addendum: A few commenters note that the jury instructions in Zimmerman's case included "stand your ground" language:

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

That language is part of the standard jury instruction [3.6(f)] in cases where the defendant claims his use of deadly force was justified. But it is hard to see how it applies to the facts of this case, since Zimmerman claimed he was unable to retreat and therefore did not base his defense on the right to stand your ground. The fact that a legal provision was mentioned in the instructions does not necessarily mean it was relevant in reaching a verdict. For example, the instructions also mentioned accidental killings and attacks on dwellings, neither of which applies to the circumstances of the encounter between Zimmerman and Martin.

This really doesn't impact on the TM case except on the initial arrest or lack of it but in my opinion the 'Stand Your Ground' law in Florida sucks. We have a version of 'Stand Your Ground' in Michigan. But here, if you shoot someone you can count on being taken to jail immediately until all the facts are sorted out; a reasonable expectation given that someone has been shot or their life been taken. The decision to release you is left the prosecutor not to the first cop on the scene.

That's why it's best to always have a lawyer's business card attached to your CCW here.

I've read the Florida 'Stand Your Ground' law. If I'm reading it right, if arrested, and eventually released, the shooter still has the right to sue the police and the municipality. In my opinion their law makes it tough to hold anyone in a shooting unless you have an actual witness.

We have been talking about 'black on white' crime and 'black on black' crime, but it seems the way the Florida law is written it creates the potential for mayhem.

And, you can make excuses till the sun goes down, but if it had been the black kid that chambered that round, and followed and killed Zimmerman, he'd be doing "Life" at the minimum, and might be sitting on death row, right now.

Facts don’t support your thesis. From a post above from Philly Confidential:

A 20-year-old man who had been on probation for brutally attacking and assaulting a senior citizen in 2011 was shot to death in Olney late Tuesday night, according to police.

Samuel Cave, of Champlost Avenue near 4th Street in Olney, was shot once in the chest just after 11:30 p.m. Tuesday at 5th and Grange streets, police said Wednesday. He was taken to Albert Einstein Medical Center and became the second gunshot wound victim of the night to die there at 11:52 p.m., after a man shot in West Oak Lane about two hours earlier also died there.

Cave was arrested in December 2011 after police released surveillance video of him and another teenager ambushing a 65-year-old man who was walking along Chelten Avenue in Olney one afternoon. Cave and his accomplice knocked out their feeble victim’s teeth and left him unconscious on the ground, according to accounts of the attack.

I happen to agree with the general theme of the Freedom Center article noted above although some of the assertions are ridiculous. But then, I agree with a lot of what David Horowitz says such as his views on the faux 'liberals' in academia; however, there is no denying he is among the most conservative of the conservatives.

In addition, I find a lot of his views despicable such as his justification of torture in defense of Allen West, a stone-cold thug.

However, even if I give Horowitz a pass, quoting data compiled through 'extrapolation' by the New Century Foundation, as was done yesterday, kind of crosses the line.

I share your frustration, Ruf. This killing would have never happened if it wasn't for some overzealous wannabe cop who was packing. Zimmerman is a dick.

That being said, what can you do about it?

Zimmerman was clearly overcharged, a big mistake by the prosecution. My reading of the law, says involuntary manslaughter would have been a more reasonable charge but the jury found him innocent of that. And there is no reason to believe that the jury didn't understand either the law or the testimony. Likewise, leading up to the verdict, 'legal experts' on both liberal and conservative news outlets were projecting that the evidence was insufficient to convict.

It's hard to say what other crimes Zimmerman could have been charged with. Assault? Hard to prove with no witnesses on who started the physical contact. The most reliable witness seemed to be the guy who said he saw TM on top 'after' the fight began.

Stalking? Not likely, as most states define stalking as repeated surveillance of someone.

Harassment? Possibly. And given that someone died, I would imagine the penalties could be quite steep. Might not satisfy the family and everyone else out protesting right now but at least it would indicate the culpability of Zimmerman.

However, he wasn't charged with a lesser crime and it is too late now as it would constitute double jeopardy.

As far as federal hate crime charges, I have always considered them bullshit and a clear case of double jeopardy. If these charges are brought it will be a clear case of the Obama administration politicizing this to curry favor with the libs (and likely get attention off the numerous other scandals going on right now).

At this point, the case is what it is. In some cases the law doesn't always provide complete justice.

As to sources, sometimes you have to use alternate sources because some subjects are taboo in msm. I try and examine the credibility and often find those most suspect infoation is in the msm. The dutiful reporting of sarin gas is the most recent. There was no questioning of the sources in that case.

It's your blog. If you feel comfortable with your sources then it's up to you. I share the frustration with the MSM, the Snowden and Gosnell cases being recent examples. However, when the facts quoted come from one US source, a white segregationist publication, and they go against everything else you have heard, I become skeptical. Especially, given the variety of conservative news outlets and blogs that are available that can dig out this info if it is available. It's not as if it isn't a matter of some interest.

The total for both categories is 949,999 per year!The breakdown on gross numbers is 42% white and 41% black.

Note: NCVS = National Crime Victimization Survey. UCR = Uniform Crime Reportsa Juvenile offenders are those for whom victims indicated that they believed the offender to have been less than 18 years old.

The MSM press would report that as white crime rates higher than black. The reality is the rates for blacks is 15 times greater.

I looked at the link you provided just as I looked at the links from yesterday and the subsequent links that were embedded in the articles.

I am open to being convinced but I am not by the references provided. Anyone with a basic knowledge of statistics would at least question the conclusions drawn.

First, there are two questions to be answered here. One, which I am not questioning, is that blacks commit proportionally larger numbers of violent crimes than whites. The other, which you have asserted and I haven't bought into yet, is that 'black on white' crime is higher than 'black on black' crime.

In the link above, the NCVS data addresses the first instance mentioned, it does not talk of the second, 'black on white' or 'black on black' crime.

Likewise, in the article you quoted yesterday by the New Century Foundation, you give us their conclusions but not how they reached those conclusions. They cite numerous references to the data they used but when we look at the data they mention (just as with the NCVS data above) we have to ask how they reached their conclusion regarding 'black on white' vs 'black on black'crime.

I found the following article which accepts the NCF study or at least prints it without question.

The first issue I noticed was the same as that mentioned above with the NCVS data. It is not in a format where you can easily extract the data by race of the perp vs race of the victim.

Evidently in a response to a request for information on crime statistics from the NCF the FBI replies,

From FBI:

Mr. LaRive:The Uniform Crime Reporting Program does not collect the age, sex, or race of victims in conjunction with offenses reported to the police with the exception of murder and nonnegligent homicide. You will find the data on the race of victims of homicide at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_02.html.

Age, sex, and race of offenders are collected in conjunction with arrest data. You will find the arrest data by race at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_43.html. If you need further assistance with UCR Program data, please contact the FBI’s Communications Group at 304-625-4995.

While there is info collected on both perps and victims in separate databases there is no easy way of putting the data together.

(This is a good reason, IMO, to criticize the government. I see no reason why this information shouldn't be made available for statistical purposes.)

However, in the absence of actual data linking the perps and the victims, the NCF resorts to creating models and 'extrapolating' information. However, in scanning through the explanation of the model it was using, I had to question some of the 'assumptions' they were making, the same problem we run into with any model.

If you look at the explanation of the modeling, you will see it is quite extensive. Admittedly, I wasn't willing to spend a day going through it all. That being said, one has to ask why, given the numerous prominent conservative media outlets and blogs we have , that no others have studied this issue, that none of these cite the NCF. Could it be because the NCF is a white supremacist group or is it because the data just isn't there. The only ones that I have seen support and cite the NCF conclusions are guys on the edge like Horowitz and Buchanan or over the edge like David Duke.

I can agree with the notion that blacks commit proportionally more crimes than whites. I still remain unconvinced of the second part, that they commit more 'black on white' crimes than they commit 'black on black' crimes.

The turning point was the fall last June of the strategic town of Qusayr, between Homs and the Syrian-Lebanese borders. Despite the hype about the crossing of Hezbollah fighters to help liberate the town, the rebels and their foreign backers were unable to stem the tide. The town fell after a short siege. Qusayr opened the way to Homs, itself an important prize because of its central location and size.

And surely the regular army, backed by air force and heavy ground artillery began moving towards Homs earlier this month. Once more the rebels found themselves under siege and unless key reinforcements arrive soon, the city could fall within days.

Such victory will certainly embolden Al Assad’s position both inside and outside Syria. His forces could soon be on their way to liberate Aleppo, the country’s economic capital. It would leave the rebels cut off from the rest of the country and they would be forced to withdraw towards the Turkish borders.

This reversal of fortune for the rebels can be traced to three main reasons. First is the inability or unwillingness by the major western countries to provide weapons to rebel groups for fear that they would fall into the hands of jihadists. Despite all the talk about maintaining the balance of power on the ground, the West has failed to deliver on promises to send sophisticated arms to the FSA. Second is the failure of the Syrian National Coalition (SNC) to present a united front. The SNC suffers from divisions, internal competition between religious and secular groups and conflicting loyalties to patron countries like Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

After the resignation of Muath Al Khatib it took the opposition months to elect a successor. Ahmad Al Jarba’s close ties to Saudi Arabia will pivot the coalition towards Riyadh at the expense of Doha. And third is the fact that the anti-Al Assad camp is less united and not as committed as his supporters.

Russia has played the Syria card smartly as it confronted US efforts to depose Al Assad. It has derailed attempts to involve the UN and repeat the Libyan scenario. Washington’s policy on Syria can be described as confused and confusing at best. It has shifted from a hardline position to one that favours a political settlement which does not meet any of the opposition’s key demands.

And even when Washington and Moscow agreed on a formula to kickstart a political process under a second Geneva Convention, the anti-Al Assad camp failed to adopt the concept as a genuine path towards ending the conflict. During this period, Al Assad remained steadfast and refused to bow under pressure.

Add to that the amount of unreported crime and you have an absolute domestic disaster ignored by all except the victims:

More than 3 Million Violent Crimes in U.S. go Unreported Every Year

Monday, August 20, 2012 - http://www.allgov.com/officials

A new report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) paints a picture of the more than three million violent crimes that go unreported in the United States every year. Based on survey responses for the years 2006 to 2010, the BJS report estimates that 52% of all violent crimes, or an annual average of 3.38 million incidents, go unreported every year, including 211,000 sexual assaults and 507,000 aggravated assaults. From 1994 to 2010, the percentage of serious violent crime—rape or sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated assault—that was not reported to police declined from 50% to 42%.

Why do so many violent crime victims fail to report the incident? Personal issues and concerns about the criminal justice system dominated the reasons, according to the report. Asked for their most important reason for not reporting, 52% gave personal reasons, including that they “dealt with it in another way/personal matter” (34%) and “not important enough to victim to report” (18%).

Concerns about the criminal justice system itself were most important to 39%, including those who believed that the police would not or could not help (16%) and those who feared reprisal or getting the offender in trouble (13%). The share of unreported violent crimes not reported for police-related reasons has increased over the years, driven by a jump in the share of victims who believe that the police would not think the crime was important enough to address, from 5% in 2005 to 12% in 2010. Those victims who said the police would be ineffective or inefficient went from 2% in 2005 to 4% in 2010, as did those who thought the police would be biased (from 1% in 2005 to 3% in 2010).

Those who named another reason or said there was no one most important reason totaled 18%.

Consistent with the importance of personal reasons to why victims did not report the crimes against them are data showing that among unreported intimate partner violent crimes, 38% went unreported because the victim was afraid of reprisal or getting the offender in trouble. Further, 62% of crimes perpetrated by someone the victim knew well went unreported to police, compared to 51% of victimizations committed by a stranger.

Bullying remains a big problem, according to the study data. About 76% of violent crimes that occurred at school were not reported to police, which is consistent with the findings that from 2006 to 2010, crimes against youth age 12 to 17 were more likely to go unreported than crimes against persons in other age categories.-Matt Bewig

Trying to dig out information on this taboo subject takes some doing. My first suspicion is based on that. It offends the liberal view on race. If the preponderance of crime was by white males on blacks there would be no such hesitation.

Here are some basic crime statistics:

Sex: Males are victimized more than females, but not by much (18.4 vs. 15.8) per thousand. There are big differences per crime category; more men are victims of robbery and serious assault, the rates for simple assault are virtually identical, more women are raped.

Race: Blacks have much higher rates of violent crime (26.8) than whites (15.8) but the highest crime category in the survey is for people of mixed race (42.1 per thousand). Blacks were more likely than whites to be victims of overall violent crime, robbery, and aggravated assault, and somewhat more likely than whites to be victims of rape or sexual assault.

Now on the surface and without much thought, one could assume and conclude that blacks are suffering more crime than whites, and there are more black on black crimes than black on white but that conclusion is incorrect based on gross numbers.

We know the aprox black population is 12%. Thus 6% are males and the youth to 40 are about 3%. That group commits 40-45% of reported violent crime.

The white population is about 6x the black population. If you take the stated rate of 15.8 per thousand and multiply that by 6, you have a larger number than the 26.8 per thousand of a group that is 1/6th the size of the white population. The number is about 4x as big. If you multiply that number by the reported 40-45% of violent crimes by blacks, you can come up with no other conclusion than that there are more black on white crimes than black on black by at least 50%, probably higher.

Given the percentage breakdowns on the 12664 homicides listed for 2011 broken down by race, the numbers don't support the assumption that 'black on white' crime is much higher than 'black on black' crime.

Total victims broken down by race equal 6334 (50%) for black and 5,824 (46%) for white.

The numbers would indicate that though blacks are obviously committing some crimes against whites, if in fact blacks were committing more murders on whites than on blacks it would of necessity mean that whites were committing an inordinate amount of murders on blacks in return. Given the segregation within high crime areas in the country which would affect crimes of opportunity, I find this conclusion highly unlikely.

1/ Though these stats are on homicides, the lower half of the analysis provides further info which shows how murders were committed as part of other crimes. And while particular violent crimes tend to be higher in one race than another, I have no reason to believe the overall numbers would vary much for this particular analysis which deals with 'black on white' versus 'black on black' crime.

2/ You will note that when it comes to the offenders section, the race was unknown in 4,000 cases. This could obviously skew the data if one race or the other was underrepresented in the stats. However, there is no way of proving this was intentionally biased and it can easily be attributed to the faulty and inconsistent ways in which the crime data is collected and reported across the nation.

This like the unreported crime mentioned above is another reason to push for better stats on crime in the US.

While I agree that one might assume that the poor crime reporting when it comes to a break down by race could be attributable to a liberal queasiness to provide, through reporting data, support for popular memes on race, there are also other reasons that could so be argued such as economics.

However, as for the crime statistics we have, there is room for debate on the factors leading to crime whether it is due to race or other issues such as lifestyles, income levels, or unemployment rates, all of which can be argued without calling each other racist.

Magnificent Ronald and the Founding Fathers of al Qaeda

“These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s founding fathers.” — Ronald Reagan while introducing the Mujahideen leaders to media on the White house lawns (1985). During Reagan’s 8 years in power, the CIA secretly sent billions of dollars of military aid to the mujahedeen in Afghanistan in a US-supported jihad against the Soviet Union. We repeated the insanity with ISIS against Syria.